Key words :
Multichain, increase userbase, increase tvl, increase latent value
What chain should apwine deploy its instruments to next? One should deploy to a chain which will add to apwines tvl and valuation while also impacting the most users who would benefit from such tools that apwine provides.
Recently the community started asking for Apwine to deploy on new chains, and several different chains were mentionned, while at the protocol’s launch the team already said the protocol should be multichain in the future.
By keeping apwine only to polygon, kovan, and the ethereum mainnet, we are reducing the exposure of the platform to users who would find the fixed income tools that apwine provides to be very helpful. Being the case that one would seek to expand apwine to more chains, but the ability of the team being limited to only selecting a new chain one at a time for the moment. There is a motion that the community vote to select another evm chain to deploy onto that will further apwines tvl and potential fee generation. A person should vote for a chain that will carry great tvl already, has plenty of yield farming opportunities, and will have long term value generation into the foreseeable future.
In this poll, the included chains are those with the most TVL according to defillama, or have been mentioned on the community discord and telegram chat. The DAO should have a discussion on which chain should be included/excluded (e.g for impartiality or protocol security criteria).
If your chain is not chosen do not fret, it is more likely than not that it will have another chance of being listed again in the future.
Voting options :
Binance Smart Chain (BSC) ($11.91 Billion TVL)
Fantom (FTM) ($9.21 Billion TVL)
Avalanche (AVAX) ($8.64 Billion TVL)
Arbitrum (no ticker) ($1.82 Billion TVL)
Harmony (ONE) ($1.02 Billion TVL)
Optimism (no ticker) ($308.2 Million TVL)
Gnosis Chain (GNO) ($204.84 Million TVL)
Don’t Launch on a new chain yet
TVL was found according to defillama on 1/31/2022 at 12:15 AM UTC
I support deployment on BSC because it carries the highest TVL of all the chains listed, a bustling yield farming community on it, and has plenty of eyes on it as well. I understand the concerns with BSC as a chain from many in the ETH community, however, APW is a suite of fixed income tools that should be shared with all users of any chains. And as our next deployment it should go to the chain that will bring us the greatest value.
Thanks @CoolGuy for putting this post together. I’ve already shared my views on the governance chat but just wanted to add them here.
While I understand your argument for seizing first mover advantage on some of these chains, I think the process of deciding whether or not to launch should be more rigorous than this poll and should start with a binary vote: are we ready to launch on a new chain; yes, launch now / no, not yet.
Personally I believe it is too early to launch on a new chain now, although I think we should have the team weigh in here to provide more info.
What are the current priorities being worked on (gauges, options, etc.)?
What amount of work is needed to launch on new chains?
Can we spare dev resources to do that work right now?
How would emissions have to change to support a new chain?
On this last point if we launch on a new chain we would either have to decrease APW rewards on mainnet and polygon, which would reduce our ability to attract much needed liquidity; or increase emissions which would reduce APW price without token value proposition having been built first and also reduce runway.
We need clarity on these points, then to have a binary vote, and then if that vote passes have a poll for which chain would be best suited.
I think Fantom is interesting because no competitors are out there, but looking at the critics about the network, it seemed to have oversaturated with Solidly hype. I’d be interested to wait a bit and see where their newly acquired TVL goes
Happy to hear more
I also support Avalanches and Arbitrum
I think BSC is too “sketchy”
Agree with that!
Just about the LM problem, if we choose Fantom for example, as @Dydymoon said, there will be LM with FTM rewards. So we can allocate less APW rewards for LM on this chain and compensate it with FTM LM rewards.
It’s maybe a litle calculation/prediction to make: the diference between the fees generated by the future new TVL on FTM and the new allocation of APW for LM on this chain.
(but for the moment I voted: no new chains)
This is Aaron from Delphi. Just wanted to throw a response in here that we would choose Avax and Fantom as the next chains for APWine, at least in the short term. Mid to late term though, we would prefer Ethereum L2’s like Arbitrum or zkSync, as we think the overall security assurances would be better. The recent Wormhole hack is a reminder that making secure bridges is extremely challenging, and without safe bridges, liquidity fragmentation is an issue.
Thanks for sharing your point of view Aaron
I mostly agree on the trajectory here, as soon are significant and interesting yield-bearing strategies are out on L2, we’d be happy to go there
Maybe with DeFi Pooling and the L2 utilization increase, it could allow us to avoid too much liquidity fragmentation
I think any of these are great choices but our primary focus should be on incentives. We cannot afford to mint more APWine without re-adjusting our budgeted amount to Polygon and Ethereum. I would be keen to speak to the Avalanche Foundation, Fantom Foundation and Optimism to negotiate a deal since they are the only ones on the list providing a substantial amount of rewards. Avalanche would be my first choice.
I agree but if the incentives are there we should take them and leverage where we launch to first. It would be a missed opportunity to not attempt to get the best compensation for APWine users as possible. We plan to be on all of these chains anyway, the incentives will help market us and increase our yields tremendously without sell preassure on APWine.
Optimistic & Arbitrum didn’t aren’t interesting for me for the following reasons :
No LM, so less interesting. the advantage of LM is we can directly redirect it to the Pool, to reduce $APW distribution.
There is not enough Big DeFi protocol with big amount of Liquidity on it in comparaison to other Chain, like Fantom or Avalanche. Adding them on APWine may - FOR NOW - bring less liquidity then adding other chain.
Optimistic & Arbitrum can be interresting in the future, with a bigger development of their DeFi Space.
Later, i guess it will be better to work on a release on zk-rollup (zk-Lend), which are really better efficient in gas, and should bring lots of people on it. I say that because it needs more work (for StarkNet, for example, with the Cairo language) and it should take more time to do so than deploy on an EVM chain.
I also vote for Fantom, because of the automatted LM program.
Definitely in favour of Optimism and Arbitrum. Optimism has a token and will be starting liquidity mining. Arbitrum will inevitably have to follow. Even if we aren’t getting token incentives immediately at launch and we can get some from Avalanche, we’d be launching on Av. right around the time liquidity starts to rotate to OP/Arb. Doesn’t make sense. Established protocols there are going to be fighting one another for the sticky liquidity.
Obviously we shouldn’t be launching on too many chains as other have noted since it would dilute APW rewards on existing chains, hurting liquidity; or would increase rewards reducing token price and runway. Need to make sure we don’t make the same mistake Sushi has launching everywhere.
And personally, I’ve kind of reached my limited for what % of a portfolio I’m comfortable having on Polygon now and liquidity and slippage on mainnet are high enough that I’m not inclined to deposit more funds there either. I’ve more funds I’d like to put into APWine and would feel much more comfortable doing so in higher values on a real L2 than on Polygon, and with cheaper fees than mainnet it would be much easier to arbitrage pools and keep prices better aligned.
OP token launch is imminent, and even if they don’t plan to distribute LM directly, there are giving a huge part of the supply as grants in several batch and most project will use at least part of it as incentives.
This was true one month ago, there was around 30 projects eligible for the grants Phase 0, and most of them posted their proposal to claim the tokens. The registration ended 3 days ago.
You can check all eligible projects for phase 0 (pre airdrop) here:
and see the projects who posted their proposal and what’s their plan with it here:
I actually changed mine to Optimism, as the phase 1 is about to start, i’ll detail this after.
Agree on the idea but as you said it takes much more time, and we’ll need some apps/protocols there too
One thing that is missing on OP for now is a yield optimizer I think, but it should change very soon if not already
For phase one, any project can ask for any amount of OP tokens, and the DAO will decide if they are distributed or not.
I can share a draft of the proposal I started to write here, so maybe you guys can add feedback and ideas on it or lmk what you think of the proposed distribution, which would be voted anyway
The distribution calculations are done with 300K OP because I thought we were eligible for it in phase 0, we’'ll have to update once we decide how much tokens to request, but you get the general idea and you can share ideas/comments/feedbacks on the doc
Imo the smartest would be to deploy asap on OP in order to apply for the phase 1 as soon as the first airdrop is done.
Fully on board with Optimism launch as soon as we can, and great to see you’ve already put in the leg work. There’s definitely appetite to support / incentivise the first yield tokenising platform to launch there, but not the 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.
Maybe if we were to have tokenised yield for staked SNX we’d have a significant use case at launch and might get some support from Kain & the Spartans.
And just on the doc you’ve shared under “Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed?” section, “APW liquidity mining : From 6 to 12 months depending on the price of OP” reads a bit like we might start distribution in 6-12 months, pretty sure you mean over a 12 month period. Might be worth clarifying just so that there’s no impression we’d be sitting on the incentives for months not using them.